|
 NR PLUS MEMBER FULL
VIEW
Welcome to “The Tuesday,” a weekly
newsletter about language, culture, politics, and watching Joe Biden fall
up stairs in a highly symbolic fashion. To subscribe to “The Tuesday,”
follow this link.
If you don’t want to subscribe, then follow this link.
Hotel California Politics
There
is a fun web game called “Redraw the States,”
which lets you reimagine the 2020 presidential election by moving
counties from one state to another. The idea is to flip the results of
the election in as few moves as possible. For example, Donald Trump would
have won in 2020 if the votes of just three counties – Philadelphia
(Pa.), Fulton (Ga.), and Wayne (Mich.) — had been reassigned to
California or some other Democratic state. The opposite strategy —
turning blue states red by annexing Republican counties to them — is a
little more difficult, or at least I found it so, because Republican
votes tend to be spread out over a greater number of less densely
populated counties. So, you could have flipped a state to the Trump
column by adding in the votes of Lubbock County, Texas (120,000 votes,
two-thirds of them for Trump) to Georgia, but finding the votes to flip
Pennsylvania or Michigan in a single Trump county is a lot more
difficult. The counties that Biden won have in total 67 million more
residents than the counties that Trump won.
I
imagine that both of my Democratic readers already are thinking:
“Reassigning the votes of a handful of dense, urban, and
disproportionately black counties to California is effectively the same
thing as taking them right off the map, which is, of course, what
Republicans are trying to do by making it more difficult to vote.” The
broad objection to the Electoral College is similar: that our
state-centered presidential elections have the effect of quarantining
big-city votes in a handful of states instead of allowing their effects
to be distributed across the country as they would if we had a single
national popular election for president. Lately that has worked to the
advantage of Republicans in two ways: by reducing the effect of the very
large Democratic majorities in California and by not reducing the effect
of the smaller Republican majorities in Texas and Florida. In 2020, Joe
Biden won California’s 55 electoral votes by a margin of 29 percent,
while Donald Trump won the 38 electoral votes of Texas and the 29
electoral votes of Florida by only 5.6 percent and 3.4 percent,
respectively. Put another way, the 11 million votes that Biden got in
California earned him 55 electoral votes, while the roughly equal number
of votes Trump won in Texas and Florida combined won him 65 electoral
votes. Biden’s advantage of 5 million votes in California was of less
worth in terms of electoral votes than was Trump’s advantage of about 1
million votes in Texas and Florida combined.
There
are many factors that go into that, including the fact that Republican
presidential candidates more or less forgo campaigning in California and
other states in which they are not realistically competitive, while
Democrats will put up a pretty good fight in Florida (and, to a lesser
extent, in Texas) because they believe they can win there.
It
is impossible to disprove a counterfactual, but I strongly suspect that
if in 2000 George W. Bush had won the notional “popular vote” while Al
Gore won in the Electoral College, or if Hillary Rodham Clinton had won
an electoral victory over Trump in 2016 without winning more votes
nationally, then we would be hearing a good deal less from Democrats
about the purported injustice of the Electoral College. (Facebook would
be a happier place, too, if the Democrats hadn’t needed someone to blame
for 2016 and settled on Mark Zuckerberg rather than, say, their
incompetent candidate.) But that is not how our particular democratic
cookie crumbles.
It
is (entirely too) easy to oversimplify this. For example, taking
Philadelphia, Fulton, and Wayne counties off the electoral map by
consigning them to the oblivion of California or Connecticut would affect
more white voters than black ones (each of those counties has a larger
white population than black population) but would affect black voters
disproportionately (each of those counties is more than 40 percent black
in a country that is 13 percent black), while our current arrangement
tends to amplify the influence of voters in such largely white states as
Wyoming and North Dakota.
This
is particularly galling from the point of view of the gross majoritarians
when it comes to Senate seats, which, unlike Electoral College votes, are
distributed among the states with no regard for population at all: Why,
they demand, should the half-million people of Wyoming enjoy as much Senate
clout as the 40 million people of California?
Again,
reality is complicated: While small-state voters are disproportionately
white and Republican, this is not a straightforwardly partisan issue,
either: The same arrangement that benefits Republican Wyoming also lifts
up the voice of our lightly populated second-whitest state, Soviet
Bernistan.
The
point of view of the gross majoritarians makes sense only if the states
don’t. And so it is no surprise to find voices ranging from the dopey Left to
the zany Left calling
for the abolition of the states: Writing in Jacobin, Rob Hunter
dismisses the states as “an ignoble legacy from the early history of the
republic,” part of “American federalism’s long tradition of strangling
popular sovereignty and democratic equality in the knots of competing and
multiple state jurisdictions.” Lawrence R. Samuel, writing in the Washington Post, insists that
diminished regional differences have turned “the once radical proposition
of the ‘United States’ into an anachronism that now has little or no real
value.”
I
find myself agreeing with the gentleman from Jacobin in his
assessment but not his conclusion: Yes, federalism and many other aspects
of American government are very much designed to strangle popular sovereignty
and to frustrate democratic equality by dividing power into competing
jurisdictions. I think he has it about right when he writes: “Federalism
multiplies the loci of power that must be captured by popular movements
seeking to transform the capitalist state, or even just win some advances
within it.”
I
differ from Rob Hunter in that I thank God for it.
Why
do we have states at all?
(Why,
for that matter, do we still have counties when we have no counts,
while we have no shires in spite of our having so many sheriffs?)
Hunter
supplies part of the answer to his own question: Dismissing the value of
the states as theaters for policy innovation, he writes: “History has
shown how those little ‘laboratories of democracy’ are just as likely to
be run by mad scientists as they are by benevolent researchers.” Indeed,
they are. But what is true of the small ones also is true of the big
ones, as 20th-century and 21st-century national governments broadly
allied to Jacobin’s view of the world amply demonstrated by
murdering some 100 million people in labor camps and gulags and through
the use of such innovative tools as mass starvation as an
instrument of political discipline. These United States
are one of the few polities in the world that can be characterized
accurately as enjoying open borders — between the states — which makes
fleeing bad public policy and abusive government relatively easy.
Relocating from California to Texas is pretty straightforward.
(It
is a hell of a lot easier than relocating from Texas to, say,
Switzerland.)
If
you happen to be advancing a fundamentally totalitarian view of the world
that recognizes no legitimate sphere of private life outside of political
control that rejects liberalism and pluralism and the rule of law itself,
and that deifies the “will of the people” — then, in such a situation,
competing loci of power must be understood to be intolerable.
Socialists are not content to live as socialists on their own terms —
they insist that you must live as a socialist on their terms, too. (And
if it comes down to it, better you than them: If a high-ranking apparatchik
enjoys a dacha and an extra ration of caviar,
then that’s really, somehow, the will of the people, too!) As
libertarians sometimes put it: In a free society, there is no reason that
a bunch of lefty crackpots couldn’t put together a worker-owned,
democratically managed steel mill that supplies its product to a
worker-owned, democratically managed automobile factory, which could
build cars and distribute them in whatever way best satisfied its
members’ sense of justice. (There will be only one sense of justice,
because there
can
be only one — in the socialist republic, disagreement on that
point is tantamount to treason.) But the opposite — a free-market
subculture in a socialist society — would be impossible. Totalitarian
politics is total on more than one front: total authority, total
discretion, total reach. To fracture political power is to recognize
limits on political power, which is an unthinkable thought for the
totalitarian.
In
the American context, the states are an embarrassment to the Left and an
impediment to the Left’s increasingly totalist project. Hence the efforts
to abolish them piece by piece: by dissolving the Electoral College, by
deforming the Senate, by preempting state elections with a new Washington-run
electoral system, by removing their discretion
in financial matters, by supplanting local standards and
practices in education and administration, etc.
Totalitarianism
fully realized requires that there be nowhere to run. It ultimately
requires defacing civilization to extirpate the genuine organic diversity
of peoples, cultures, religion, regions, and modes of life. This is why
socialist governments, for example, so reliably turn abusive and
repressive when they are not outright genocidal. But socialism is not the
only species of totalitarianism, and the current right-wing populist
rhetoric that similarly deifies “We the People”
is based on a similar set of assumptions. And what happens when “We the
People” demand something We the People’s self-appointed populist
spokesmen dislike? False consciousness, says the Marxist. Media bias and
left-wing educators, says the rightist.
None
of those gets to the facts about democracy, facts that were well
understood by John Adams and others among our Founding Fathers: Democracy
is at best a procedural convenience for choosing representatives and
ensuring a minimum level of accountability in elected officials. Democracy
is not a synonym for “good government” — often it is the opposite — and democratic
is not another way of saying “decent” or “intelligent.” We all understand
this at the moral margins: If the United States had had a national referendum
on slavery in 1862, slavery would have won in a landslide. But we know
slavery was wrong and needed to go. A century later, a national
referendum on civil rights for the descendants of those slaves would have
failed at the polls. The framers of the Constitution knew that We the
People cannot be trusted very long or very far, which is why the most
important of our liberties — freedom of speech, of the press, of
religion, to keep and bear arms — were put in the Bill of Rights, placing
them beyond the reach of mere democratic majorities. We the People need
to be told “No!” pretty often and “Hell, no!”
from time to time. Every time a populist initiative strips away some
layer of insulation keeping the People from exercising direct power, it
also strips away some layer of insulation protecting the People from
having direct power exercised on them. Populism means government
modeled on Twitter.
Hell,
no.
The
creator of “Redraw the States” offers it as an invitation to “weep at how
arbitrary our electoral system is.” Arbitrary is offered as a
synonym for undesirable or unfair, but the fact is that
all voting systems have arbitrary rules. Why on earth we let 18-year-olds
vote when we won’t sell them a handgun or a beer is a mystery to me. (No,
I don’t want to lower the drinking age to 18 — I want to raise the voting
age to 40.) Our system has a lot of pressure points and a lot of veto
points, and it has them by design. And we are hardly the only country
that has such measures in place: In Switzerland, for example, national
referenda must win both a majority of the overall vote and a majority in
a majority of the federation’s 26 cantons to take effect. That’s a high
bar to clear, which is why Switzerland has no national minimum wage
(thunderously rejected by 76 percent of voters) or a strict “corporate responsibility”
law (approved by a majority of voters but not in a majority of cantons).
About
a third of the U.S. population lives in just four states (California,
Texas, Florida, and New York), but our system of government ensures that
a handful of populous states cannot dominate the affairs of the entire
nation. South Dakota soybean farmers have their own interests, distinct
from — and sometimes rivalrous to — those of Wall Street financiers or
Silicon Valley entrepreneur or low-income people in San Antonio.
Federalism, properly understood and properly implemented, gives them a
chance to say “Hell, no!” (or maybe just
“No, thanks!”) to policies and laws reflecting values and priorities at
odds with their own. Unhappily, our politics has for many years now run
in the opposite direction: Rather than working to restrict the national
government to matters that are genuinely national in character (foreign
policy, immigration), the schemers and snoots and do-gooders and
botherers have pushed Washington’s big ugly snout into every corner of
American life — public life, yes, but increasingly into private life,
too.
All
systems based on definite rules can be manipulated, and all political
systems include rules that are arbitrary. But our arbitrary rules serve a
necessary purpose — or two: The first is giving people the means to put
up roadblocks in front of nonsense, and the second is providing a means
of escape when those roadblocks fail. If you would like to know more
about the practical realities of living in a society with no means of
internal exit, some of your immigrant neighbors might be able to fill you
in.
The
worst effects of leftish/progressive government in these United States can
still be avoided by moving to a state with different practices. And
people unhappy with the Republican dominance of Texas or Utah can always
move to a Democrat-dominated state — there is more room in those states
every day. The power of exit puts real pressure on dopes and miscreants
and charlatans and fools such as Andrew Cuomo and, you know, every single
sad-faced clown holding office in the extra-long stretch-limo clown car
that is California. When the people pack up and go, so does the tax base,
and politics is no fun at all without easy access to other people’s
money, and lots of it.
Progressives
prefer a world in which you cannot leave California even if you leave
California, in which the Golden State really is a Hotel California from
which you can check out but never escape. There’s a reason Senator
Elizabeth Warren has proposed a confiscatory tax on the assets of
Americans who renounce their citizenship and move to another country.
Americans
should think a little bit about why a particular political tendency would
desire to create conditions making exit from its jurisdiction impossible.
Words About Words
A
count’s
territory is a county. A sheriff’s territory is a shire
— he is a shire reeve, reeve being an old Anglo-Saxon
name for the chief local official, something like what the Italians would
have called a podestà once upon a time. Sheriff
seems to bear a family resemblance to the Arabic sharif, but the two words are
unrelated.
Rampant Prescriptivism
Gail Collins:
“I wonder if there’ll be more or less people naming their children Donald
in the future.”
Stannis
Barartheon:
If
you write “less” when you mean “fewer,” you are more or less asking to be
misunderstood.
Send
your language questions to TheTuesday@NationalReview.Com
Home and Away
You
can buy my latest book, Big White Ghetto: Dead Broke, Stone-Cold
Stupid, and High on Rage in the Dank Wooly Wilds of the ‘Real America,’ here.
Prepare to be outraged.
My
National Review archive can be
found here.
Listen
to Mad
Dogs & Englishmen here.
My New York Post archive
can be found here.
My
Amazon page is here.
To
subscribe to National Review, which you
really should do, go here.
To
support National Review Institute, go here.
In Closing
I’d
like to point out that Amazon’s policy banning the sale of books with
dissenting views of the transgender controversy — specifically those that
frame the issue as one of mental illness — is purely pretextual and
entirely dishonest. It is some shameful . . . stuff. It was obviously
cooked up after the fact to justify the suppression of Ryan Anderson’s
book. You know that because Amazon continues to sell the works of Sigmund
Freud, not to mention old copies of the DSM. Like the
clown-show over at Condé Nast, this is pure corporate cowardice on the
part of people who expect to be entrusted with a special role in shaping
public discourse — and who cannot be trusted with that responsibility.
To
subscribe to “The Tuesday,” follow this link.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment